Monday, July 28, 2008

Kudlow - Is Obama Freedom Deficient?

"Why is it that in all his statements in his recent foreign-policy trip to the Mideast and Europe, Sen. Obama never mentions the importance of spreading freedom and democracy around the world, and most especially in the very troublemaking nations that are so tied to terrorism that he has been discussing?

"Perhaps I’m wrong about this. But I tried to read most of his speeches and I watched his television interviews, and I can’t find or don’t recall any references to freedom and democracy. What’s up with this?

And let me add, although Obama does mention terrorism, I do not recall him using the phrase “global war on terrorism,” or “war on terrorism,” or “protecting the U.S. from terrorist attacks.” I’m no expert on foreign policy, so I ask my colleagues at NRO to tell me what I’ve missed here. I’ll be happy to recant. But I continue to believe that the biggest reason to stop Iran, stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, nail Osama and his evildoing friends in Pakistan, and generate some sort of protection for Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the weak Palestinian government is a) to get the bad guys on their home turf before they get us and b) to spread freedom and democracy since democratic countries tend not to attack each other or us."

1 comment:

My comment is on America's foreign policy. I think the best arrangement would be for the US to respect all other states' sovereignty and allow them to work out their own domestic politics. The US has played God so many times in other state's domestic affairs, and it has almost always come back to bite us.

We need to adopt a foreign policy that respects all other states' sovereignty, and allows for specific bilateral arrangements as needed without offsetting our overall multilateral commitments. This way, America can be the country that everyone else trusts. We can be the country that the world looks to for humanitarian assistant, economic assistant, technological assistance, and democratic leadership; rather than what we are today, feared and hated by the international community. How long can any state continue in such a way?

What if we were spending $500 billion/year feeding, educating and healing our own citizens, and repairing our own infrastructure? It wouldn’t be long before we could start extending those benefits to the rest of the world. Who would hate us for that? No state would want to be at war with such a country.

What other realistic choice do we have? As it stands, unless we intend to use nukes, or fight solely from the air, we can’t stand against nations such as Pakistan (or Iran) in traditional, boots on the ground combat; our military is far too small. Waging such a battle in a prolonged war against countless non-state actors is nothing short of insane, foolish and arrogant.

The most intelligent option we have is to adopt a new foreign policy that will ensure the all the current states of the world that the US no longer intends to encroach on their sovereignty (something the greater majority certainly do not believe today). That doesn't sound like Obama or McCain.

Consider Senator Obama. He’s just returned from a world tour, in which he proclaimed his intention to continue the military war on terror, and to take it to the soil of one of America’s own allies. It's ironic that Senator Obama has publicly proclaimed a unilateral policy of preemptive war, yet we still tend to associate Senator McCain with President Bush.

Now consider Senator McCain. He’s proclaiming the need to continue the military war on terrorism as well. How long will it be before either of these candidates has the United States in direct opposition to the greater Muslim world? Both candidates are blindly assisting the efforts to radicalize moderates against the United States. In this great political campaign, what we need is a candidate that understands that the hearts and minds of over a billion Muslim people hang in the balance; not between Obama and McCain, but between moderate and radical. And US foreign policy can tip the scales. What we need is a candidate that can wage war where it can be won, at the negotiating table.